ETA: Ah, I see what this is in relation to. Yes, after they've exited the birth canal. Premature babies would be babies once they're out in the incubator. Before then they would be fetuses. In context people would be talking about humans that have been born, but are too young to be described as "toddlers". Infant would be a suitable alternative word.

If they are not, then please explain to me at what point they BECOME babies ... when they exit the birth canal? When the cord is cut? How about preemies? Are THEY fetuses? Not babies?

What babies in and out of the womb are is freeloaders. They need to get a job and pay taxes like everyone else. Parasitic teet suckers. They don't even speak English. This is America. Pull your fair share or GET OUT.

If they are not, then please explain to me at what point they BECOME babies ... when they exit the birth canal? When the cord is cut? How about preemies? Are THEY fetuses? Not babies?

Try the traditional Jewish view: personhood is acquired on the first breath. Compare Gen 1:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Do you recognize the Bible as some kind of authority? For an example of when a foetus isn't considered a person, read Gen 38:24, "And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Not yet a person, no prospective infanticide.

Even better, Ex 21:22, "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." "With child", that is rather "with a potential child", but no transgression of the thou shalt not kill/murder thing; the foetus is just a piece of property belonging to the man. Interesting turn of phrase "and yet no mischief follow" ....

If you have read the Bible, you should also have noticed the recipe for bringing on an abortion to an unfaithful wife. No problem getting rid of the growth. No arguing that the priest is allowed to murder.

What Dave is really asking, of course, is why we (or some of us) do not regard unborn fetuses as babies in the legal sense of being a person.

It's a decent question, given that we do in fact refer to "unborn babies" in many contexts, including when we are pregnant.

I'm happy to give my answer to that question.

OK I'm listening.

First of all, I do not hold the belief that human beings have an immortal soul, whether allocated at conception, birth, or some time in between (or for that matter, later). So bear that in mind as you read what follows.

I think that the development from fertilized ovum to human being is a gradual one. In other words, I think the characteristics that are typical of human beings become gradually more present as the embryo, then fetus, then baby develop. I also, by the way, think that death is a gradual process, which is why we no longer define death as the cessation of the heart-beat - we know we can often reverse a cardiac arrest, but that it ceases to become sensible as the brain becomes progressively more starved of oxygen, and therefore more irrecoverably damaged.

However, I also think that human beings have rights, and that we have a responsibility to other human beings. I think we also have a responsibility to sentient animals, as it happens. I think we should avoid causing pain and/or terror if we can. So I am happier about the humane killing of animals for food than I am about keeping animals in conditions that cause them distress.

But when it comes to human beings (and possibly some animals) I think we also have a responsible not to take away their future. So if a human being, or sentient animal, has a future they can envisage, I think it is a form of theft to take it away.

And so it makes sense to me to mark the moment of birth (however premature) as the point at which that baby requires the rights of an adult human being. It is the moment at which the baby's interests become independent of her mother, and so also the moment at which we can balance the rights of both equally without encroaching on either. And it is also the beginning of the child's understanding that she is part of a world in which she has a role to play.

That is not to say we should disregard the rights of the unborn child to be comfortable and free of pain. But the preceding arguments are why think the moment of birth is the most appropriate time to confer the right to a future, i.e. full human rights, on a baby.